Beyond confidence workshops: Closing the agency leadership gender gap
The recent data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows there is plenty of work to be done to close the leadership gender gap. Here, leadership expert Michelle Redfern looks at strategies that should be implemented to do just that for Australian agencies.
Considering recent data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and insights from industry analyses, it’s clear that closing the leadership gender gap in Australian agencies requires a shift in focus – from mere confidence building to building business acumen among women leaders.
Understanding the status quo
Recent data shows a persistent disparity in pay within Australian agencies. The median pay gap for base salaries between men and women is 14.5%, widening to 19% when bonuses and other perks are considered. This substantial gap underscores the systemic challenges women face in achieving parity in the workplace. Yet, when it comes to advancing more women into leadership positions and closing the yawning gender pay gap, women are often still given the career advice to ‘just be more confident’.
Challenging the confidence narrative
In my book, “The Leadership Compass,” I argue that focusing solely on building women’s confidence overlooks systemic structural issues. Imposter syndrome (feeling like a fraud even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary), disproportionately cited as a critical barrier for women, is a symptom of these deeper systemic flaws. The ambition penalty (where women are often punished for displaying traits celebrated in men, such as assertiveness and ambition) is another double standard that can stifle women’s career advancement and leadership development.
How about we shift the focus to competence?
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic’s insights highlight the misidentification of confidence as competence. His TED Talk, book and various articles rightly critique the overvaluation of the charismatic, confident buffoon, which often leads to the promotion of less capable leaders. Hiring the confident, charismatic person is more likely to result in a man getting the job than a woman.
Since nearly 60% of senior leadership skills are related to business, strategic and financial acumen competencies, what I call BQ, it is time to shift from subjective confidence to objective competence-based talent decisions.
Advancing more women into leadership roles means that decision-makers must begin to emphasise and cultivate core BQ competencies. BQ in leadership, the leader gets results, and it rests on the competencies associated with business, strategic, and financial acumen. It means knowing and being known for the skills related to leading for strategic and financial business outcomes and being ambitious and driven for the organisation’s success.
We should develop strategic BQ competence in women rather than continuing to measure the candidate’s confidence. After all, if you were heading into brain surgery, would you prefer competence or just confidence in your surgeon? I’ll have both thanks because confidence rests on a foundation of competence!
Leadership call to action
To move forward, the focus must be on developing a broader strategy that includes serious investment in developing women’s critical leadership competencies (hello, BQ!).
- Redefine Leadership Criteria: Shift the focus from superficial traits like confidence to deeper competencies in business, strategic and financial acumen.
- Train People Leaders: They must know about and how to interrupt gender bias and double standards that prevent women from advancing.
- Fix the System: Address the structural biases that are baked into organisational policy, cultures and ways of working that women.
This shift will not only close the gender gap in leadership but also enhance organisational performance because there will be more wildly talented and effective women in leadership.
Subscribe to the daily newsletter
I thought this was a well considered argument, albeit, I do have some good faith questions for Michelle (i also hate that i have to caveat my intentions here, given how toxic this debate can become).
1. Can any disparity in base salary of leadership position be explained by age and experience? In my lived experience, i have seen multiple instances of women being promoted into leadership positions at younger ages than male counterparts. Now, there’s an entirely plausible explanation here, that these women are bloody good operators, however, there’s also the less charitable argument that this is a box ticking, quota filling exercise, thus, given the correlation between experience, age and salary, i’d love to see any analysis that cuts the data this way, as opposed to the “i only have a hammer” approach of male vs. female
2. I’d make the argument that any mention of “systemic problems” fails to incorporate that most fundamental system – the human system. Study after study show that women are more prone to neuroticism based on the big 5 personality traits, and it’s not a stretch to link higher trait neuroticism with anxiety, stress, lack of belief, and from there, imposter system. Simply concluding that this is all because of patriarchy is disingenuous. Absolutely, there are some legacy systems in place that haven’t always supported women in the workplace (and let’s remember, this is Australia not some backwater where women are not even allowed to work), but that’s not the only reason, in spite of the author appearing to suggest show.
User ID not verified.